Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "pooper".
Did you mean:
cooper
2013 Nov 09
1
[LLVMdev] Proposal for safe-to-execute meta-data for heap accesses
...bunch of places, (b) wasn't a big deal, and (c) reliably scaled to 8 cores (the max number of cores I had at the time - I was a grad student and it was, like, the last decade).
Is there any documented proposal that lays out the philosophy? I'd like to understand why locks are such a party pooper.
> to require careful locking protocols to be followed. Instead, I want the design to naturally arrange for different threads to operate on different constructs and for the interconnecting interfaces to be thread safe. The best system we have yet devised for this is based around function passes...
2013 Nov 09
0
[LLVMdev] Proposal for safe-to-execute meta-data for heap accesses
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote:
> Is the expectation that to utilize this metadata an optimization pass
> would have to inspect the body of @f and reason about its behavior given
> <args>?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
> If so, then I think this is pretty bad. If we ever want to parallelize
> function passes, then they can't
2013 Nov 08
5
[LLVMdev] Proposal for safe-to-execute meta-data for heap accesses
> On Nov 8, 2013, at 1:13 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote:
>> NEW PROPOSAL
>>
>> The solution is to introduce meta-data that is explicit about how the safe-to-execute condition ought to be evaluated. Instead of an SSA use, we can have meta-data that
2011 Aug 10
8
Universal syntax for Markdown
Hi,
because of the great editor "Writer" from Information Architects I've
learned about Markdown and I love it. But it's very confusing, that
there are so many standards with different features: classical
Markdown, Markdown Extra, MultiMarkdown. I think for most users and
the spreading of Markdown it would be nice, to have only one syntax.
And this universal syntax should have
2009 Apr 19
21
[on-discuss] Reliability at power failure?
Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
>
> I would suggest that you follow my recipe: not check the boot-archive
> during a reboot. And then report back. (I''m assuming that that will take
> several weeks)
>
We are back at square one; or, at the subject line.
I did a zpool status -v, everything was hunky dory.
Next, a power failure, 2 hours later, and this is what zpool status